iTunes Pricing Showdown > Clueless...

reply to 93254336

Re: Clueless...

Or perhaps the bands should be allowed to set the price for their own music. That is what we do for our online music store. The bands set their own price...seems a lot more fair to me.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.»www.ind-music.com

at least you sell undrmed ogg files

good for you for giving a crap about the consumers

reply to King P
The bands won't be setting their own prices until they get out from under record label contracts.

With online digital music becoming more popular, I hope that more GOOD bands will dump their labels and produce their own stuff and make more profit for themselves. The record industry can however keep the Brittany's and the Mariah's. Please.

reply to Curious3
Most of today's music is crap.
I don't care for the music industry but during the early-mid 60's when a single (two songs) cost $1.00, buying them was a stretch for most people. That same dollar today would be $10.
So inflation adjustment means the cost of music has gone down along with its quality.

I agree that it might be cheaper today but don't forget the distribution costs. The 1960's price was for a piece of vinyl that you had to buy at a store.

From a cost perspective, I would give the edge to the on-line music stores. They have the cost of their computing infrastructure and bandwidth but I'll bet this is still less than a physical store's brick and mortar for the equivalent quantity of customers and there's no production costs associated with each sale.

reply to Curious3
You forgot to add, they don't care about the law.

»www.villagevoice.com/music/0534,···,22.html

That is BS. They disregard laws when they don't benefit them, but use the law to sue us when it does benefit them. "Payola, the music business likes to claim, is deplorable; it's just that everyone does it. "
You could say:
Pirating music off the internet, internet users like to claim, is deplorable; it's just that everyone does it.

It is BS. BUT, like some people like to point out, they can buy the government and not follow the laws.

The big offender was Sony Records. They aren't liked by some artists either. Mariah Carey got out of her contract (even though she still sucks) and The Dixie Chicks sued to "renogotiate" their contract.

As you can see, even the courts can be bought.

That being said the point of discussion was moonpuppy's "suck" comment. Since we are talking about entertainment what is considered entertaining is of course subjective. The current influx of pop music has been wearing thin on a lot of people and this is due to there being way too much of it on the airwaves. Mariah Carey fits squarely into this niche, which is probably the source of moonpuppy's disdain. I was merely trying to paint a broader picture.

Sure they are entertainers. So I think just about any "they suck" comment you hear is taken for granted as opinion. You might like Mariah's voice talents, but what about other artists? Maybe The Ramones are considered too pedestrian for your tastes, however punk fans might get what they were doing and love them for it. Maybe Brian Eno is considered to be too ambiguous or boring, however for fans of minimalist and ambient music he's great. BTW I am in no way assuming your tastes. Just giving example on how one man's garbage is another man's gold.

Keep in mind for many just being an entertainer isn't enough to be called a musician or even an artist in the music field. Milli Vanilli was ostracised for just being entertainers. To a lesser extent Mandy Moore came across the same problems. Maybe you can say they didn't sing and Mariah does. However they are still entertainers. So where do you draw the line? I think these lines are drawn by each individual, however most times people are swayed by public opinion. Which brings me back to how the popularity of performers like Mariah and Britney aren't as well earned as one might think.

This is going to sound like circular reasoning, but Mariah Carey is popular because Mariah Carey is popular. She didn't rise to stardom. She was placed there. Does this make her a bad singer? No. Does it aggravate people who are looking for more diverse talent than pop-stars? Definitely.